Complementary Roles of Phas and Phasm
The interplay between metaphor and metonymy informs the complementary nature of Phas and Phasm
Phas leans towards the metaphorical, offering an overarching structure rooted in abstraction and conceptual exploration. Like metaphor, it organizes thought by connecting seemingly disparate ideas into cohesive frameworks, enabling perspective-taking and meaning-making.
Phasm leans towards the metonymic, providing tools that compress processes into actionable symbols. Like metonymy, it enhances efficiency by associating symbols with specific functions or domains, making abstract ideas executable.
Together, they reflect the balance humans strike between abstract meaning (metaphor) and practical association (metonymy) in cognition and language.
Concrete Mechanisms of Phas and Phasm
Phas as Metaphorical: Phas uses hierarchical trees to create an interconnected “Forest of Thought.” For example, in a decision-making framework, a tree in Phas could abstractly model ethical considerations, balancing conflicting priorities like fairness and efficiency through its branching structure. Each branch connects disparate domains, such as economics, ethics, and psychology, into a unified framework.
Phasm as Metonymic: Phasm, on the other hand, might compress the ethical decision framework into a single macro, EthicsBalanceFramework, which can execute the abstraction into actionable parameters like FairnessIndex or CostBenefitRatio. This reflects the metonymic principle, where a symbol (macro) represents the broader abstraction for execution.
Blending Metaphor and Metonymy
While Phas and Phasm lean towards metaphorical and metonymic functions respectively, they are not exclusively one or the other. Phas, despite its abstract focus, requires actionable components to anchor its conceptual frameworks in reality. Similarly, Phasm, while process-driven, must accommodate abstract thought to effectively translate concepts into executable forms.
For instance, Phas’s metaphorical “Forest of Thought” relies on concrete executable branches to maintain coherence, and Phasm’s macros often encapsulate abstract reasoning into actionable symbols. This interplay highlights how metaphor and metonymy are not distinct silos but overlapping strategies in cognition and design.
The concept of learning in Phas/Phasm is high-entropy data (ideas, uncertainty, exploration) into low-entropy data (knowledge, structure). Phas is Exploration or search space (Metaphor) and Phasm is Categorisation and structure (Metonymy).
There is inevitable loss when distilling trees or branches into macros especially in a non-deterministic setting but efficiencies can be made in conversion.
Phas and Phasm
A widescreen conceptual illustration of two abstract frameworks: Phas and Phasm. On the left side, ‘Phas’ is represented as a glowing, intricate forest with dynamic, interconnected trees symbolizing exploration, ideas, and high-entropy data. The forest is vibrant and chaotic, full of energy. On the right side, ‘Phasm’ is depicted as a precise geometric crystalline grid, symbolizing categorization, knowledge, and low-entropy data. A gradient bridge connects the two, transitioning smoothly from the organic complexity of the forest to the structured clarity of the crystalline grid. The scene is illuminated by a soft ethereal glow, emphasizing the contrast between chaos and order, exploration and structure.
